The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-26-2014, 01:31 PM   #51
Guess Who
Rookie
 
Guess Who's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,188

Adopt-a-Bronco:
PMFM
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
Just sold an investment property I bought in 2008 for asking price, and it doubled in value. My home, also bought in 2008 has doubled in value and I am about to get 15% return on money invested with cash flow from renting it.

Where is this bad economy?
Good timing. If you would have bought that house in 2006 you would be underwater on it.
Guess Who is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 02:33 PM   #52
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 10,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
How about linking sources to these opinions?? Otherwise, it's just more partisan hyperbole.
One of thousands of articles detailing Obama's new method of calculating GDP (the US is the only country that does this):
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...duct-hollywood


Detailing timeline of 1st quarter GDP estimate revisions:
http://downtrend.com/james/updated-f...three-percent/
Started out at 0.1% gain, then revised to -1.0% contraction, then revised again yesterday to -2.9% contraction. Obviously, something is up. Initial estimates off by 3.0%? Not likely.

How do you know when this administration is lying? When their mouth is moving. They have already been fudging the numbers, now they attempt to shift all the losses to the 1st quarter, in order to make the 2nd quarter look better and avoid a technical Recession. Utterly pathetic.

I have no doubt in my mind that once Obama and the Socialist Progressives are out of office, if a Republican becomes president, they will go back to reporting the traditional method of calculating GDP. Showing that Obama's presidency was far worse than he portrayed, even though there has been ZIRP, stimulus, and trillions printed over the last 6 years.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 02:35 PM   #53
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 10,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
cutthemdown, SmilingAssassin, Price, and UltimateHobo are pretty much the microcosm of the Fox News viewer macrocosm. I'd also throw barryr, among others, on the list but he hasn't imparted his wisdom upon this steaming pile of a thread yet!
Another lie. I don't have cable and don't watch Fox news.

Again, please quit lying. I called you out on it a few posts ago, and here you are lying again.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 02:40 PM   #54
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,533
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
If you follow the markets, you know there was a large tech sell off in Q1 and a general slump in the stock market due to the fed pulling back, in several increments, on QE (it's now down to $35bn/month from $85bn).

It's exactly the expected result and not an indication of what the righties are hoping for (a total melt down). OH, and it happens to be exactly what the righties have been clamoring for.

Let me guess, reducing QE will now be something they are against...
When the stock market bubble pops it will be a non partisan event, trust me. Both parties are owned by Wall Street. MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 03:29 PM   #55
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 10,120
Default

When Obama first released his formula for recalculating gdp, conservative estimates were that it artificially added +0.5% to quarterly gdp numbers. Let's go with that.

quarterly gdp average reported = 1.11% (old method)
quarterly gdp average reported = 1.61% (new way)


Therefore, even with QE1, QE2, Twist, QE3, and zero interest rate policy for Obama's entire presidency, Obama still only averages 1.11% average annual growth.

That's INCLUDING Obama racking up $8.5T in debt already in the first 6 years of his presidency (which is also added onto gdp).
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Obama_gdp.JPG (60.6 KB, 52 views)
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 03:42 PM   #56
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
One of thousands of articles detailing Obama's new method of calculating GDP...
lol, so you think Obama is the one calculating the GDP?
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 03:44 PM   #57
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Again, please quit lying. I called you out on it a few posts ago, and here you are lying again.
Neither comment is a "lie" since opinions aren't lies. You just misunderstood the first comment you're calling a lie, which I later explained. As for this one? It's pretty much a fact that you puppet the same nonsense Fox News spews day and night, whether you get it directly from the source or not.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 03:47 PM   #58
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
lol, so you think Obama is the one calculating the GDP?
of course. when positive job numbers come out and the unemployment rate drops, rightwads state that the unemployment rate is a lie and is much higher.
when obamacare recipients sign up, rightwads state that that's a lie and numbers are lower. now it's the gdp.
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 03:49 PM   #59
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,429

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
lol, so you think Obama is the one calculating the GDP?
I know next to nothing about what Price is saying, but the idea that the President needs to be manually doing something by himself for it to be his responsibility is pretty comical.

I don't think Reagan was running the pallet jack unloading guns in Iran for Contra cash, now, was he? Let's hope not anyway.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 03:54 PM   #60
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
...but the idea that the President needs to be manually doing something by himself for it to be his responsibility is pretty comical.
So, then, you're also going to give Obama credit for the massive stock market surge? My portfolio is doing pretty damn well, how about yours? THANKS OBAMA!!!
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 03:55 PM   #61
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,589
Default

Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 04:02 PM   #62
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,429

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
So, then, you're also going to give Obama credit for the massive stock market surge? My portfolio is doing pretty damn well, how about yours? THANKS OBAMA!!!
Oh, good news... on Wall Street? Yeah, that's all Obama.

Bad news... 3% drop in GDP in Q1 2014? Fackin' Bush!

'Bout due for a new pair of kneepads, eh?
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 04:09 PM   #63
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,776
Default

lol, Beavis, I think the point went directly over your head...
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 04:19 PM   #64
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,429

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
lol, Beavis, I think the point went directly over your head...
Funny. That's what I thought.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 04:32 PM   #65
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,755

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
One of thousands of articles detailing Obama's new method of calculating GDP (the US is the only country that does this):
You're talking about the UNSNA or United Nations System of National Accounts that has been in place for decades.
What you are specifically talking about is the 2008 update to the 1993 SNA. (The revision of the 1993 system was coordinated by the Intersecretariat Working Group on National Accounts (ISWGNA) comprising the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) and the United Nations regional commissions.)

You think this is an Obama trick?? Seriously? Updating how we calculate GDP is ongoing.

The US, and most countries follow the 1993 SNA, this is an update.

Quote:
Many countries continue to compile their national accounts according to the 1968 SNA, but more and more are adopting the 1993 SNA. A few low-income countries still use concepts from older SNA guidelines, including valuations such as factor cost, in describing major economic aggregates.

In general, the definitions under the 1993 SNA guidelines for these indicators remain as before, and only the terminology has changed. Exceptions are: GNI in constant prices, which differs from GNP in that it also includes a terms of trade adjustment; and gross capital formation which now includes a third category of capital formation: net acquisition of valuables. Included in gross capital formation under the 1993 SNA are capital outlays on defense establishments that may be used by the general public, such as schools, airfields, and hospitals. These expenses were treated as consumption in the earlier version of the SNA.
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...239419,00.html
Detail OECD: http://www.oecd.org/std/na/39267818.pdf

UNSNA:http://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/sna2008.asp

Quote:
The United Nations System of National Accounts (often abbreviated as "SNA" or "UNSNA") is an international standard system of national accounts, the first international standard being published in 1953.[1] Handbooks have been released for the 1968 revision, the 1993 revision, and the 2008 revision.[2]

The aim of UNSNA is to provide an integrated, complete system accounts enabling international comparisons of all significant economic activity. The suggestion is that individual countries use UNSNA as a guide in constructing their own national accounting systems, to promote international comparability. However, adherence to an international standard is not, and cannot, be rigidly enforced, and the systems used by some countries (for example, France, United States and China) differ significantly from the standard. In itself this is not a major problem, provided that each system provides sufficient data which can be reworked to compile national accounts according to the United Nations standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ional_Accounts
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 04:34 PM   #66
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,755

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
When Obama first released his formula for recalculating gdp, conservative estimates were that it artificially added +0.5% to quarterly gdp numbers. Let's go with that.

quarterly gdp average reported = 1.11% (old method)
quarterly gdp average reported = 1.61% (new way)


Therefore, even with QE1, QE2, Twist, QE3, and zero interest rate policy for Obama's entire presidency, Obama still only averages 1.11% average annual growth.

That's INCLUDING Obama racking up $8.5T in debt already in the first 6 years of his presidency (which is also added onto gdp).
I notice you don't recalculate the 2007-2008 'recession'. the SNA actually makes it look less 'recessive'
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 04:40 PM   #67
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
Except the real news is I LET 1000's of vets die even though I was told about the problem. A far cry from curing cancer.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 05:37 PM   #68
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 10,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
I notice you don't recalculate the 2007-2008 'recession'. the SNA actually makes it look less 'recessive'
I put up Obama's numbers. I could care less about Bush, though I'm sure his average quarterly GDP is far higher than Obama's 1.1%.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 05:44 PM   #69
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 10,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
You're talking about the UNSNA or United Nations System of National Accounts that has been in place for decades.
No, I'm not.


"Starting in July 2013, the U.S. government started a new lie to pull wool over our eyes. They are revising how they calculate GDP and adding a bunch of dubious calculations just to show that the U.S. GDP number is healthy and that we are growing as a nation.

So how is GDP really calculated?

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or

GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)

The government has now made a significant change in the gross investment number (I), which now includes research and development (R&D) spending, art, music, film royalties, books and theatre. This change in GDP statistics has not been implemented elsewhere in the world. So the United States is the first to accomplish this rewriting of the GDP number.

R&D spending, which shouldn't even be accounted for as investment, adds a significant amount to the GDP number it accounts for around 2 percent of U.S. GDP. Art, music, film royalties, books and theatre add another 0.5 percent."


http://www.moneynews.com/Advani/GDP-.../07/id/519128/

In my plot above, I only subtracted -0.5% from the reported value, because that was the initially reported discrepancy from the traditional calculation. I wanted to compare apples to apples.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 06:33 PM   #70
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,755

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
No, I'm not.


The government has now made a significant change in the gross investment number (I), which now includes research and development (R&D) spending, art, music, film royalties, books and theatre. This change in GDP statistics has not been implemented elsewhere in the world. So the United States is the first to accomplish this rewriting of the GDP number.
Yes you are.

What you have posted is an explanation of the new additions in the 2008 update to the SNA.

Had you read any of what I posted and linked, you'd know that what you describe as 'Obama's trickery,' is more of your partisan silliness.

Moneynews.com? Really?

Ok, fair enough, here's another explanation from English.news.cn. To make it easier for you, I underlined the salient facts. You're welcome!

Quote:

U.S. NOT THE ONLY TO ADOPT NEW APPROACH


"What BEA is planning to do is in line with the recommendations in the 2008 SNA," Dail said. The 2008 SNA is the latest version of the international statistical standard for the national accounts.

Dail said the account changes in definitions and classifications are planned for BEA's 2013 comprehensive revision of the NIPAs which will be released on July 31.

Comprehensive revisions happened every four to five years. The last comprehensive revision was released in July 2009. In the 1999 revision, computer software was first included in GDP.

The new revision will make the United States one of the first countries to adopt the most important of the major changes introduced in the 2008 SNA, including the recognition of research and development expenditures as fixed investment.

"What the U.S. is proposing is consistent, I believe, with recent changes to international standards and a sensible step forward. It's not a particular big change, but it's a useful one. I'm sure more changes are coming," Backus said.

Most other developed economies, including those of Europe, will have incorporated most of the major changes included in the 2008 SNA into their economic accounts by 2014, the BEA said in March.

"I think we'll see other countries do similar things. The challenge is measuring these things accurately. I'm sure countries will share ideas and eventually spread the best ones around the world," Backus said.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/in..._132356761.htm

Last edited by DenverBrit; 06-26-2014 at 06:36 PM..
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 08:51 PM   #71
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 10,120
Default

^ Cool, all the debtor European countries are going to change their way of calculating gdp too?

It's pretty funny that the Eurozone has been shrinking ever since the recession, now them (and Obama) agree to print money and fudge the numbers to keep widespread panic from happening, while continuing their Socialist agendas which lead to failing economies. Now no one knows what the actual number should be? How convenient.

Their is now no valuable metric to gauge the US or European economies. So, I expect we'll be seeing "growth" remarkably spring up in Europe sometime this year approaching 2-3%. You don't have a problem with that?
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 09:28 PM   #72
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,755

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 09:46 PM   #73
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
Don't piss off Manning.
 
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun's Avatar
 
Time to believe!

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gensis Planet
Posts: 6,891

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2014, 11:07 PM   #74
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,005

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

More people ever on food stamps and disability. The democrats actually think this economy is splendid.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 12:19 AM   #75
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 10,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
I guess not. Let me ask again. Do you have a problem with deliberate manipulation of gdp numbers? I don't really care if Europeans are going to begin doing it too. I already know they're crooked.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:27 AM.


Denver Broncos